MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393969168 · doi:10.1093/deafed/enad038

Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Guiding Values

2024· article· en· W4393969168 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Pat Moeller, Amy Szarkowski, Elaine Gale, Trudy Smith, Bianca C Birdsey, Sheila Moodie, Gwen Carr, Arlene Stredler-Brown, Christine Yoshinaga‐Itano, Daniel Holzinger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)PsychologyContext (archaeology)Diversity (politics)Developmental psychologyPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is the second of eight articles in this special issue on Family-Centered Early Intervention (FCEI) for children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) and their families, or FCEI-DHH. Five foundational values that guide FCEI-DHH are described, providing an evidence-informed, conceptual context for the 10 FCEI-DHH Principles and other articles presented in this issue. These values are applicable for Early Intervention (EI) Providers and other professionals on FCEI teams, as well as for FCEI-DHH programs/services and systems. The five key values include (1) being family-centered, (2) responding to diversity, (3) involving invested parties, especially families and individuals who are DHH, (4) supporting holistic child development, and (5) ensuring fundamental human rights. These evidence-informed values are considered essential to the effective provision of FCEI-DHH supports.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.020
Scholarly communication0.0170.010
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0090.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education→Same topicFamily and Disability Support Research→French-language works237,207→